C.A.S.E. January 25, 2006 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director

Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Implications for State and District Policies and PracticesC.A.S.E. January 25, 2006

Dr. George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for School ReformSchool Psychology ProgramUniversity of South Florida

If we can really understand the problem, the answer will comeout of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.-Krishnamurti

There will be no prizes for predicting rain..

Prizes will be given only for building arks.

Advanced OrganizersThis is a process that will take timeRtI is more about general education than special educationRtI is a component of problem-solving, not an independent processResponse-data basedIntervention-evidence-basedStrong basis in statute and rule

Advanced OrganizersResponse-assessmentAdministered frequentlyHighly sensitive to changesAligned with intervention focus/outcomesIntervention-evidence basedAligned with local demographicsDelivered with integrityContinuous progress monitoringWhat are the implications for practice and training???

www.nasdse.org

What is the Statutory and Regulatory Foundation for Problem Solving and Response to Intervention?

Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving Process in General and Special EducationIDEA Re-AuthorizationFocus on academic outcomesGeneral education as baseline metricLabeling as a last resortIncreasing general education optionsPooling building-based resourcesFlexible funding patternsRtI Introduced as option for LD eligibilityESEA Legislation-No Child Left BehindNational Emphasis on ReadingEvidence-based Interventions

Why Problem-Solving ?BIG IDEASAYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to student progress, not student labelsBuilding principals and superintendents want to know if students are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students typeAccurate placements do not guarantee that students will be exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of progressEffective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather than good testingProgress monitoring is done best with authentic assessment that is sensitive to small changes in student academic and social behavior

Big Ideas (cond)Interventions must be evidence based (IDEA/NCLB)Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure of problem severity Program eligibility (initial and continued) decisions are best made based on RtIStaff training and support (e.g., coaching) improve intervention skillsTiered implementation improves service efficiency

Status of ReauthorizationTitle: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement ActPassed House in 2003, Senate in 2004Signed by President Bush in December.IN EFFECT July 1, 2005Regulations in Fall

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement ActIn general._Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602(29), a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act(B) Additional authority._In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention.Process refers to Problem Solving ProcessResponds refers to Response to Intervention

(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIBIGILITY DETERMINATION- In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is

(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965);(B) lack of instruction in math; or(C) limited English proficiency.

Proposed RegsFor a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in 300.304 through 300.306, data that demonstrates that--

(1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child was provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings, consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by qualified personnel; and

(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, was provided to the child's parents.

Proposed Regs(c) If the child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time, during which the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section have been implemented, a referral for an evaluation to determine if the child needs special education and related services must be made.

ImplicationsPoor/lack of instruction must be ruled outCurricular access blocked by any of the following must be addressedAttendanceHealthMobilitySufficient exposure to and focus on the curriculum must occurFrequent, repeated assessment must be conducted

So What Is Special Education-Really?Characteristics AND Need (IDEA 04)Instructional and Related Services Necessary to Profit from Education Supplements General EducationNote: Does not supplant-particularly LDUnified system of EducationFunds (really??) Instructional and Related Services When Those Reach a Certain Level of IntensityWhat is Special? Intensity and Focus

Is It All About Reading? Yes!52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs70% +/- of special education activities (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts46% of IDEA $$ go to improve readingChanges in LD Rules will affect the vast majority of special education activities

Problem Solving and RtII really just want to be able to use RtI without all of that problem-solving stuff--can I do that?

Problem SolvingA process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

Problem Solving Process

Response to Intervention:How Well Are We Doing?A systematic and data-based method for determining the degree to which a student has responded to intervention.Determined solely through analyzing dataBegins with using data to IDENTIFY the problemServices should intensify for a student as the student response to intervention is below expectations.It IS NOT Problem-Solving

Response to Intervention:How Well Are We Doing?What do we do when a student has been placed in special education but the students rate of progress has not changed significantly?This has significant implications for special education re-evaluations under the RtI model.

Integrated Data SystemNine Characteristics:Directly assess the specific skills within state and local academic standards.Assess marker variables that lead to the ultimate instructional target.Are sensitive to small increments of growth over time.Can be administered efficiently over short periods.

Integrated Data SystemMay be administered repeatedly.Can readily be summarized in teacher-friendly formats/displays.Can be used to make comparisons across students.Can be used to monitor an IEP over time.Have direct relevance to the development of instructional strategies related to need.

What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is an overall integrated system of service delivery.

Is Not:RtI is not just an eligibility systema way of reducing the numbers of students placed into special education.

What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is effective for students who are at risk for school failure as well as students in other disability categories.

Is Not:RtI is not limited to students with learning disabilities.

What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is The use of RtI is an excellent opportunity to more effectively align IDEA and NCLB principles and practices.

Is Not:RtI is not just an special education approach.

Use of RtI in the Student Eligibility ProcessSo, how does the eligibility process look different using the RtI approach vs. traditional practices?

Adapted from Fletcher, 05, Used with Permission

High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldnt shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick. We are being asked to accomplish things weve never done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence

Traditional vs RtITraditionalDiscrepancyIQ/AchievementRule OutSocioculturalSESSensoryDevelopmentalRule InPsychological ProcessesDataNorm referencedRtIDiscrepancyChild/BenchmarksRule OutIneffective instruction/accessSupplemental instructionIntensive instructionRule InIdentification of effective interventionsExtraordinary supports for progressDataCurriculum-basedAuthentic

Re-EvaluationsTraditionalDiscrepancy continues to existLimited progress toward benchmarksSupports criticalRtIGap is closingIf response is poor, should we keep the student in the program?If response is good, can we transition to a Tier 3,2 or 1?

Problem SolvingCan be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levelsStudent-academic and/or behavior problemClassroom- discipline, returning homeworkBuilding- bullying, attendanceDistrict- over-/under-representationProblem- problem common to students in building

Problem-Solving:What It Is and Is NotWhat it is.A process designed to maximize student achievementA method focused on outcomesA method to ensure accountability and intervention evaluationIt is all about student progress, regardless of where or who that student isWhat it is notA way to avoid special education placementsA less expensive way of schooling

What Are the Barriers?

Its a different way of doing business for some.It requires an expanded set of skills.Interventions are integrated, not done by team members or special educators onlyRequires frequent data collection and analysis--different cultureFocus is on HOW and student is doing, not WHERE the student is going

What Are the Benefits?Enhanced Student PerformanceAccountabilityGreater staff involvementGreater parent involvementGreater student involvement

Discrepancy/Child Study vs Problem SolvingFocus on interventions (not test scores)Low and high ability students respond equally well to phonemic awareness and phonics interventions.

Assessment linked to developing and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions (not to diagnoses or categories)

Balance between needs/resources (not strictly to eligibility)

Change process (not a fix)

Student outcome-based, not placement-based (What students DO is important, not what students are CALLLED)

Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special EducationExcedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy ModelSpecial education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)

Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)

Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.

Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)

Its the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

Research on Problem-Solving/RtIFocused on accuracy of referral methods and response to proven interventions

RtI methods (local comparisons and multiple measurement) were superior to teacher referral for problem accuracy.

Teachers over-referred male students

Greater proportion of African American students responded successfully to intervention relative to similarly at-risk Caucasian students. Reduced disproportional placements.

Early intervention was powerful

Significant reduction in LD placements(VanDerHeyden, Witt, and Naquin)

Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked

How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process?What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds? What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?

Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions AskedIs there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model?What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy model?

How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process?Evidence from Iowa and Minnesota would suggest that it takes 4-6 years (or more) to complete full implementation. Full implementation includes policy and regulatory change, staff development, and development of building/district-based procedures.

Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public SchoolsProblem-solving model phase-in began in 1994Adapted from Marston (2001).

What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds?VanDerHeyden, et al. report that students responded positively to the method and that African-American students responded more quickly than other ethnic groups.Marston reported a 50%decrease in EMH placements over a 6-year period of time.Marston reported a drop over a 3-year period in the percent of African-American students placed in special education from 67% to 55%, considering 45% of the student population was comprised of African-American Students.

Percentage of African-American students at each stage of referral process at 41 schoolsN=9643N=9170N=348N=416N=200N=154N=184N=124

What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?Swerdlik, et al. conducted a longitudinal study of the impact of PSM/RtI in the FLEXible Service Delivery system in Illinois. Results indicate that both teacher and parent satisfaction with the PSM/RtI method was superior to that of the traditional test-staff-place model.

Teacher Satisfaction at HeartlandQuestion 1: The problem solving process supports teachers in improving the performance of students whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports.

Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general and special education. Source: Heartland AEA 11 Consumer Satisfaction Survey 2000-2001

Gen Ed Teachersn=390Principaln=31Sp Ed Teachersn=89Agree81.0%96.7%92.14%

Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model?Marston (2001) reports a 40% decrease in special education placements for LD programs.VanDerHeyden, et al., report a significant reduction in the rate of placement in LD programsHeartland Early Literacy Project (HELP) reported significant decreases in initial special education placements in grades K (41%), 1 (34%), 2 (25%) and 3 (19%) across a 5 year initial implementation period.

What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy model?VanDerHeyden, et al. reported that RtI methods (local comparisons and multiple measurement) were superior to teacher referral for problem accuracy.

VanDerHeyden, et al. reported identification of students for eligibility for LD programs was accurate when compared to traditional ability/achievement discrepancy methods.

Research and PSM/RtI

RtI and Traditional Discrepancy ComparisonAmanda VanDerHeyden (2005)

QUALIFYYesNoPendingTotal

Poor RtI-Refer152421

Good RtI-Do Not Refer 915125

Total 24175 46

Essential ComponentsMultiple tiers of intervention service deliverysuch as a three-tier modelProblem-solving methodAn integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery

RtI:The Conceptual ModelIntegrate with Core Instructional Programs and Activities in the DistrictReading First, Early Intervention, Positive Behavior Support

3-4 Tiered Model of Service Delivery and Decision-MakingUniversal--What all students getSupplemental--additional focus and intensityIntensive--modifying instructional strategiesExtraordinary-- highly specialized methods

Problem-SolvingCan occur at any levelIncreases in intensity across levels

Integrating Problem-Solving into the Tiered Delivery SystemHigh probability hypotheses that address poor performance must be built into the tiers.Standard interventions that address these hypothesis must be available in all general education settingsProgress monitoring methods must be incorporated into general education

Tiers or LevelsTier One- Examining Universal InterventionsQuestions:How is this student doing compared to other students? GAP analysisWhat percent of other students are achieving district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instructionHypothesesHo: Has this student been exposed to an effective learning environment?Ho: Has this student had access to an effective learning environment?

Tiers or LevelsTier One- Examining Universal InterventionsAssessment:AYP DataState-wide assessmentsDistrict-wide assessmentsAttendance dataHealth dataInterventions:Improve quality of instruction to all studentsImprove attendance

Tier 1: Example A82% of Caucasian Students are achieving AYP in reading20% of African American Students are achieving AYP in readingAfrican American student is referred for LD for a reading problemQuestion: Is this student in an effective instructional environment?

Tier 1: Example B85% of students in a 4th grade are achieving AYPReferred student has been in the school for 4 years and is 2 years below benchmark expectationReferred student has been absent an average of 55 days in the past 2 years.Question: Has this student been exposed to effective instruction?

Tier 1: Example C90% of 3rd grade students are achieving AYPReferred student has been in this school since Kgn, has excellent attendance, no significant health history and has received a variety of interventions in readingReferred student performance is 50% of peers in reading and at grade level in mathQuestion: Has this student been exposed to an effective learning environment?

TIER 1: Benchmark/SchoolwideBenchmark/Core Reading Programs:

1.Rigby Literacy (Harcourt Rigby Education, 2000)2.Trophies (Harcourt School Publishers, 2003)3.The Nations Choice (Houghton Mifflin, 2003)4.Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading (2003)5.Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2002)6.Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2002)7.Scott Foresman Reading (2004)8.Success For All (1998-2003)9.Wright Group Literacy (2002)

Reviewed by: Oregon Reading FirstComprehensive: Addressed all 5 areas and included at least grades K-3

TIER 1: School-Wide Discipline Programs:

Positive Behavior SupportProsocial Discipline ProgramsSchool-wide Discipline CommitteeAttendance Programs

Tiers or LevelsTier Two- Examining Supplemental Interventions

Hypotheses:Ho: Student requires additional time for direct instructionHo: Focus of the curriculum must narrowAssessment:DIBELS, CBM, district assessmentsInterventions:Increase AET (90-120-180)e.g., K-3 Academic Support PlanNarrow focus to fewer, barrier skillsDistrict Supplemental Curriculum

Characteristics of Tier 2 InterventionsAvailable in general education settingsOpportunity to increase exposure (academic engaged time) to curriculumOpportunity to narrow focus of the curriculumSufficient time for interventions to have an effect (10-30 weeks)Often are standardized supplemental curriculum protocols

TIER 2: StrategicStrategic/Supplemental Reading Programs:

Early (Soar to) Success (Houghton Mifflin)Read Well (Sopris West)Reading Mastery (SRA)Early Reading Intervention (Scott Foresman)Great Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.)REWARDS (Sopris West)Ladders to Literacy (Brookes)Read Naturally Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)

TIER 2: StrategicStrategic/Supplemental Behavior Programs:

Small Group SST Anger Control Training Peer/adult mentoring program Tiered discipline program(e.g., positive rehearsal, time out)

Tier 2: What is a Good Response to Intervention?Good ResponseGap is closingCan extrapolate point at which target student will come in range of peers--even if this is long rangeQuestionable ResponseRate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still wideningGap stops widening but closure does not occurPoor ResponseGap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Tiers or LevelsTier Three: Examining Intensive Interventions

Hypotheses: Focus on child-specific issuesAssessment:DIBELS, CBE, Diagnostic AssessmentsInterventions:Address verified hypotheses

Characteristics of Tier 3 InterventionsDeveloped from individualized student problem-solvingAssumption is that more of the problem lies within the studentGoal is to find successful interventions firstBased on intensity of the interventions required for student success, determination is made about eligibility for special education.Should comprise 4-5% of student populationCriteria for Good RtI is same as Tier 2

TIER 3: INTENSIVE Reading Programs

Corrective Reading (SRA)

Language! (Sopris West)

Wilson Reading System Reading Mastery

Earobics (phonics/phonemic awareness; Cognitive Concepts)

Great Leaps/ Read Naturally (Fluency)

REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in Plus Program)

Soar to Success (comp.)

TIER 3: INTENSIVE Behavior Programs

Individual counseling/therapy Individual Behavior Plan Rapid Response In-school alternative education Frequent, daily mentoring

Example of Tier Level InterventionsCurricular FocusFrequency of Progress MonitoringTier I905 areasCoreYearly or greaterTier 2120Less than 5Core+SupplementalMonthly or greaterTier 31802 or lessCore+Supplemental+IntensiveWeeklyReading

Case ExamplesThanks to Joe Kovaleski and Ed Shapiro for the case examplesPA State-wide RtI Initiative

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks

Words Correct Per Min

LISA

Data

Sept5030

35

Oct38

36

Nov40

Dec

Jan

Feb

Sheet2

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1: ScreeningORF = 50 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44 wcpmComprehension skills are judged as at levels equal to ORF by her teacher Is this student at risk?Current Gen Ed Instruction is Working

NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsLisaContinue Tier 1 Instruction

RitaSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Rita

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb

Tier 2: Strategic -PALS

Trendline = 1.85 words/week

School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Data

Sept502020

24

Oct28

35

Nov34

Dec

Jan

Feb

Sheet2

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1: ScreeningORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44 wcpmComprehension deficits in all 4 of 5 areas are notedCurrent Gen Ed Instruction is NOT WorkingIs this student at risk?

NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRitaRitaContinue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & InstructionSupplemental, small group instruction (3-4 students with similar skill levels)Standard protocol intervention3x per week, 30 minutes eachTeam selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnelImplemented for 8 weeksProgress monitoring once every 2 weeks

Aimline= 1.50 words/week

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Rita

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb



School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Data

Sept502020

24

Oct28

35

Nov34

Dec

Jan

Feb

Sheet2

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention & InstructionORF = 34 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 1.85 words/weekGains above benchmark in 4 of 5 comprehension areasStudent on target to attain benchmarkStep 2: Is student responsive to intervention?

NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsRitaContinue monitoring or return to Tier 1

StevenSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Steven

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb



School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Data

Sept502020

24

Oct28

35

Nov34

Dec

Jan

Feb

Sheet2

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1: ScreeningORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44 wcpmComprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5 areasCurrent Gen Ed Instruction is NOT WorkingIs this student at risk?

NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRitaStevenContinue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & InstructionSupplemental, small group instruction in Ritas group (3-4 students with similar skill levels)Standard protocol implementation3x per week, 30 minutes eachTeam selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnelImplemented for 8 weeksProgress monitoring once every 2 weeks

Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.55 words/week

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Rita

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb



School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Steven T2

20

18

22

21

24

Dec

Jan

Feb


School Weeks


Steven

Data

Sept5020202020

2418

Oct2822

3521

Nov3424

28

31

36

Dec35

42

44

40

Jan45

Feb

Sheet2

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention & InstructionStep 2: Is student responsive to intervention?ORF = 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/weekBelow comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areasStudent NOT on target to attain benchmarkIs student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?

NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsStevenContinue monitoring or return to Tier 1

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions & InstructionSupplemental, 1:3, pull-out instructionIndividualized Problem-Solving, Targeted InstructionSpecific decoding and analysis strategies Emphasis on comprehension strategies5x per week, 30 minutes eachImplemented by 2 different available instructional personnelImplemented for 8 weeksProgress monitoring once every week

Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.2.32 words/week

Chart5

20

18

22

21

24

28

31

36

Dec35

42

44

40

Jan45

Feb


Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension Strategies

School Weeks


Steven

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Rita

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb



School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Steven T2

20

18

22

21

24

Dec

Jan

Feb


School Weeks


Steven

Data

Sept5020202020

2418

Oct2822

3521

Nov3424

28

31

36

Dec35

42

44

40

Jan45

Feb

Steven T3

Steven T3

20

18

22

21

24

28

31

36

Dec35

42

44

40

Jan45

Feb



School Weeks


Steven

Sheet3

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention & InstructionStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3?ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/weekAt or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areasStudent on target to attain benchmarkStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention?Move student back to Strategic intervention

NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility DeterminationStevenContinue monitoring or return to Tier 2

BartSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.95 words/week

Chart6

20

18

22

21

24

22

25

30

Dec26

28

30

28

Jan31

Feb



School Weeks


Bart

LISA

50

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


LISA

Rita

20

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Benchmark

School Weeks


Rita

Rita T2

20

24

28

35

34

Dec

Jan

Feb



School Weeks


Rita- Tier 2

Steven T2

20

18

22

21

24

Dec

Jan

Feb


School Weeks


Steven

Data

Sept5020202020

2418

Oct2822

3521

Nov3424

2822

3125

3630

Dec3526

4228

4430

4028

Jan4531

Feb

Steven T3

Steven T3

20

18

22

21

24

28

31

36

Dec35

42

44

40

Jan45

Feb



School Weeks


Steven

Bart T3 SpEd

Bart T3 SpEd

20

18

22

21

24

22

25

30

Dec26

28

30

28

Jan31

Feb



School Weeks


Bart

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention & InstructionStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3?ORF = 31 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 0.95 words/weekBelow comprehension benchmarks in all areasStudent NOT on target to attain benchmark

NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility DeterminationBartContinue monitoring or return to Tier 2

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Grade Level Social Skill Training35%50%55%60% Benchmark75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line= Trend Line

35%50%55% Benchmark75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line= Trend Line65%60%

35%50%55% Benchmark 75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line= Trend Line65%60% Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) Home-School Notes Individual Self-Control TrainingTier 3 - Intensive80%75%

How Do We Determine Eligibility:Need?Significant DiscrepancyIntensity of support for Tier 3 interventionsCannot move to Tier 2-level interventions without intense supportsNot responsive to Tier 3 and need intense interventions to achieve successful outcomesCommon criterion: improved outcomes

Early InterventionSchool Readiness Uniform Screening System (SRUSS)ESI-KDIBELSClearly Defined Developmental Standards for 3-5All Kindergarten Students screened with DIBELS in first 21 days of school

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System ResultsESI-K: Students with Valid Scores(N=175,806)

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System ResultsDIBELS Letter Naming Fluency: Students with Valid Scores(N=175,023)

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System Results2004 DIBELS Initial Sounds Fluency: Students with Valid Scores(N=174,913)

RtI Format in KindergartenIdentify 40% at moderate/high riskRe-assess 1 month laterDid levels of risk change?Re-assess 1 month later (November)Did levels of risk change?Identify moderate/high risk studentsIncrease AETRe-assess 1 month laterIncrease focus and intensityContinue progress monitoringModerate/high risk at end of yearUse information to plan first grade intervention processAIP developmentMethods for significantly increased time and focus

What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and Districts?Early intervention Use Kgn DIBELS and similar assessments for this purposeAccess to and Use of Data Student data is the most accurate means of referring students for assistance and making judgments about intervention effectivenessAccurate Tier 1 Decisions Special education cannot cure large-scale pedagogical problems one student at a time

What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and Districts?Evidence-Based and Available Tier 2 Interventions Good example is K-3 Academic Support PlanIdentifying SUCCESSFUL Tier 3 interventions PRIOR to making an eligibility determinationStaff Professional DevelopmentTechnology Support for Data Management and Access to Evidence-Based Tier 2 and 3 Interventions

Do We REALLY Want To Do This?It DependsIf we are interested in as many students AS POSSIBLE achieving benchmarks AND AYP--its the best thing we haveIf we are looking to solve pedagogical management problems for diverse populations, then probably not.

How Long Will It Take to Implement this Effectively?3-6 yearsTake it one step (e.g., skill) at a time.Start with young students (Kgn/DIBELS)Consider Tier 1 issuesCreate Tier 2 options with existing staff and resourcesDevelop a 5 year PDP for staffEase their job with social support and technologyUse networks-avoid reinventing the wheel.

How Do We Increase Resources?TIME in and FOCUS of the curriculumFocused Reading InterventionsK-3 Academic Support PlanMiddle School Rigorous Reading RequirementsIntensive Accelerated ClassroomReading FirstEarly InterventionDIBELS ScreeningPositive Behavior SupportAfter School ProgramsParent InvolvementProfessional Development for Teachers

Personnel Critical to Successful ImplementationDistrict-Level LeadersBuilding LeadersFacilitatorTeachers/Student ServicesParentsStudents

PSM/RtI Content:All PersonnelUnderstanding of:National, state, district policies regarding RtILink between NCLB, IDEA 04, AYP and RtIBeliefs, knowledge and skills that support implementation of RtISteps in the PSM, multilevel RtI model, and how eligibility is determined using RtIFundamental utility of using progress monitoring

Role of District LeadersGive permission for modelProvide a vision for outcome-based service deliveryReinforce effective practicesExpect accountabilityProvide tangible support for effortTrainingCoachingTechnologyPolicies

District Leaders: Content KnowledgeUnderstanding of:Professional development delivery model that best supports implementationStaff and budget requirements to integrate general and special education services for the implementation of RtIRelationship between implementation and expectations for improved student performanceBarriers that will occur and that must be addressed during implementationUse of, and support for, technology necessary to ensure efficient and effective implementationEssential stages of change and variables necessary for the smooth transition to the use of PSM and RtI

Role of the PrincipalSets vision for problem-solving processSupports development of expectationsResponsible for allocation of resourcesFacilitates priority settingEnsures follow-upSupports program evaluationMonitors staff support/climate

The Principal:Content KnowledgeUnderstanding of:Need for universal, supplemental and intensive instructional strategies and interventionsComponents of a successful PDPNeed for and skills in data-based decision-making and the need to share outcome data frequentlyNeed to publicly recognize the relationship between staff efforts and student outcomesNeed to involve and inform parents of the essential elements of RtI and their role in the process

Role of the FacilitatorEnsures pre-meeting preparationReviews steps in process and desired outcomesFacilitates movement through stepsFacilitates consensus buildingSets follow-up schedule/communicationCreates evaluation criteria/protocolEnsures parent involvement

Role of ParticipantsReview Request for Assistance forms prior to meetingComplete individual problem-solvingAttitude of consensus buildingUnderstand dataResearch interventions for problem area

The Participants:Content KnowledgeAn understanding of:The relationship between RtI and student achievementNeed to increase the range of empirically validated instructional practices in the general education classroomUses of the problem-solving methodTechnology and other supports available and necessary to implement RtIAdministrative and leadership support necessary to maximize the implementation of RtINeed to provide practical models and examples with sufficient student outcome dataNeed for demonstration and guided practice opportunities

Student Services Staff:Content KnowledgeAn understanding of:The different models for evaluating student performance differences and their impact on the development of instructional and assessment practicesEvaluation strategies to assess instructional quality in general and special education classrooms and programsCBM and related continuous progress monitoring technologies to relate individual student performance to instructional quality dataNeed for and models of social support and the role of support staff in the provision of that support for school staffSpecific training in coaching, mentoring and data management strategies

Role of ParentReview Request for Assistance form prior to meetingComplete individual problem solvingPrioritize concernsAttitude of consensus building

Student InvolvementIncreases motivation of studentReduces teacher loadTeaches self-responsibility

Impact on Leaders:A Change in FocusStudent progress, not labels are most importantAll students compared to general education expectationsAll students affect AYPA students response to intervention is the most important dataAcademic Engaged Time is the currency of problem-solvingTraining and coaching must be focused on PSMIncrease the use of technology Interventions must be evidence-based

Staff SupportRisk-free or risky environment?Expectations may be most important factorAlternative not Less

What is a Team?Facilitators VisionAgreement through CONSENSUSWe agree to try and seeNo one person is an expert-a show maker or a show stopperPeople stay focused on common goal-Development of Effective InterventionsInterpersonal conflicts do not affect outcomeThis is about the studentWe are seeking an significant improvement-not a cureResources must be managed wellPrimary resource is time

Special emphasis on low SES and minority studentsTraining Notes

This is a slide that depicts in pictorial fashion what we are doing as we proceed along an eligibility determination decision making process.

Some question may arise as to who the non-responders in special ed may be. These are students for whom the level and intensity of the decided special ed interventions suggest a higher level of intensity. For example, students identified as eligible, placed in a resource or itinerant service level, and do not respond to the intensity of treatment may need for self-contained services. The level of the response to special education services determines the level of special education needs down the cascade of services.Perhaps something here about how the effectiveness of special education is determined, in great part, by the effectiveness of general education in any given building.Training Notes:

This is the decision model at Tier 1. Lisas ORF is above benchmark for some risk, her comprehension skills are judged as at levels equal to that reflected in her ORF. Therefore, she is not at risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum (in this case, Open Court) is working and she is making the expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a disability.

You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum) instruction.Training Notes:

Rita is in the same class, and at the fall benchmark screening she scores 20 wcpm. The teacher judges that her comprehension skills are equally low and not reflected as being substantially different than ORF.Training Notes

This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the 25th to 75th percentile of the normative group.

Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this language which I think works):

In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency. We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the 100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents, they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and expository text.

Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50% on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at 100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even though a student may read the text.

Training Notes:

Decision making at Tier 1 shows that Rita is NOT making sufficient progress in general education setting, and that the instruction within the core curriculum is not sufficient for her to meet benchmarks. As such, you move to a Tier 2, Strategic intervention.

Training Notes

The data based decision making team decides that the PALS program, a peer tutoring program, would be an excellent method for Rita to improve her reading. The specifics of PALS are described by clicking the link and showing the audience the following information off the link:

Click PALS Manual, Sample, PALS Student Question Card. This illustrates two examples of the strategies of the PALS program, paragraph shrinking and prediction relay.2. Return to click DEMO VIDEO, PALS, and show the two video clips from the PALS. Although the images are small and cannot be enlarged, they illustrate the nature of a standard protocol intervention.

The intervention will be implemented in small groups from the second and third grade where students have similar skill levels and needs. The team puts the intervention into place 3 times per week for 30 minutes each, two different instructional personnel (the special ed teacher and an instructional aide) are available to facilitate the intervention, and the intervention will be in place for 8 weeks with PM conducted every 2 weeks.

Given that this is a strategic intervention, one increases the intensity of the supplemental instruction AND the PM over the benchmark, tier 1 level, but not at the level that will occur at tier 3. Remind the audience that it is the variation in intensity of instruction and the frequency of monitoring that are key variables that change as one moves up the tiers.Training Notes:

This graph depicts the outcomes of the Tier 2 intervention. The aimline, based on the decided level of expected progress is shown in blue dots, the actual outcomes of the intervention is shown by the trendline. The dashed blackline shows the anticipated outcomes over time based on the intervention imlementation.

A question will arise as to whether one now continues the intervention until benchmarking occurs again in winter. I believe that IF the resources are available to continue the process until benchmarking, that would be the right decision. The student would then be exited from tier 2 as long as they met benchmarks. IF a resource problem develops and the team cannot sustain the effort, the child would be exited to tier 1 at the end of 8 weeks but obviously would be carefully examined as the second benchmark period was implemented.Training Notes:

The decision making process at tier 2 shows that Rita was responsive to the intervention and would not be a student who is considered any further to have a disability. Given her data, she would probably be exiting from the tier 2 intervention and return to tier 1, core instruction only intervention .

Training Notes

Steven is a third student from the same class. All the same things from previous slides introducing students apply here.Training Notes:

The decision process at Tier 1 shows that instruction in the core curriculum alone is not working, so one move to a tier 2 strategic intervention.Training Notes:

Steven is placed into the same group with Lisa for PALS. This slide just reiterates that this is a tier 2 strategic intervention.Training Notes:

Stevens performance on ORF is shown here. While he is making some progress, the rate of improvement over the 8 weeks is about 3 times slower than the target which is shown on the aimline. One can see that if the same trend was maintained he is unlikely to meet the winter benchmark.Training Notes:

The decision making process at tier 2 shows that while gains were present, they were far below the expected level. As such, Steven needs to move to tier 3 interventions which would be greater in intensity and with more frequent progress monitoring. At this point he has NOT been responsive to intervention,

Training Notes:

At tier 3, the teams looks specifically at Stevens skill development and pulls together an individualized plan that emphasizes specific decoding and analysis strategies, increases the intensity of instruction (5x per week), and increases the frequency of PM (once per week). Two additional peers with similar level of need at Tier 3 are grouped with Steven, these students come from a different class within his grade within his school. Again, two different personnel are selected to implement the strategies, a regular ed teacher and a special ed teacher.

Training Notes

This slide depicts the outcomes of the intensive strategic intervention effort. As seen in the trendline, Steven shows substantial improvement here and reaches a level of gain that is likely to lead to a successful winter benchmark. Again, the question of whether he would continue until the winter benchmark will be raised. Given that this would now be 16 weeks after starting tier 2 intervention, it is likely that the winter benchmark is about to occur so the team would likely leave him in the strategy until the benchmark was taken. Assuming he meets the benchmark, the team may ease him back to tier 2 strategies again to see if a less intense effort will sustain his progress.Training Notes:

Decision making at tier 3 shows that Steven is responsive to intervention and there should be no need to move toward a special ed determination decision. Given his data, one would probably continue monitoring through the end of the benchmark period and if he maintains his progress, return to a Tier 2 intervention.

Training Notes:

Bart is the 4th student from the same class.Training Notes:

Bart moves through the same process as Rita and Steven, but with far less success. As one can see, even with intensive tier 3 intervention, Barts progress does not reach the level that will likely lead him to meet winter benchmarks. Given that we have moved through tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, and these interventions have been done with integrity, Bart is referred for consideration for special education eligibility.Training Notes

Bart is NOT responsive to intervention at the level that will lead to successful outcomes, even with intensive interventions. As such, one moves to a special ed eligibility determination.

Documents

C.A.S.E. January 25, 2006 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director